1AC
Great style. I could understand every word you said.
Combine the future of east asia, east asia, and heg flows. They're all based off the same internal links and can be easily combined into one advantage with two different impact scenarios. That would prevent the confusion that ensued about 5 times during the debate.
Add more ev, time the 1AC. Even with the extra card, you still have time left over.
CX
Ryan-Don't give in so easily. Conceeding plan unpopular is probably not a good idea.
1NC
Slow down at the very beginning. I lost the tag of the first card in your burst of speed.
Note to everyone: also slow down when switching flows. It takes me a second to change on my computer, and I lose part of the first arg you make if you're going top speed with no pause.
I also have no idea what the CP is. It's fine to have to CP text reference a piece of evidence, but then you need to slow down on that piece of evidence so that I have an idea what's going on.
The Marines link seems a little shady on the START DA. The Marines are inherently intertwined with and probably have a very strong opinion about defense policy. This opinion will probably not change as a result of the plan.
Make sure you get to case with more time so you don't feel rushed, perhaps by not reading quite as many impacts on island hopping. You got rushed, and you lost clarity to the point where I didn't know where you were on the flow in the end.
2AC
Make sure you have warrants for all of your claims on case. It's good to point out that they dropped a card that responds to their claim, but you still need to give me a bit of a warrant behind that card.
You need more offense on both of the DAs. Have carded offense on Island Hopping/make it a lot clearer. On START, you need to have more offense than just 1 impact turn or the block can easily outcard you. Additionally, you need to be making defensive claims against their impacts-the Kagan card would do that well.
Nice job articulating that the link will be triggered inevitably, but make sure this arg gets into later speeches as well.
The link turns on island hopping weren't very clear, be more explicit.
Have more offense on the K. Outside of an unarticulated point about colonialism and capitalism, there isn't anything in the way of true offense, and 4 or 5 points just isn't enough in general. I could easily have seen a block that went heavy on the K making your lives pretty miserable.
Reading the "aff solves x impact of the da" cards weren't very strategic in a world where they go for the CP, because they'll subsume your offense. You need external impact turns.
Your answer to warming not anthro is insufficient. Telling me that warming is happening now does not tell me about its source.
CX
Stop yelling at each other, and let everyone finish their questions/responses. It would make it MUCH easier to hear what's going on.
2NC
Fantastic overall.
VERY deep analysis on CP solvency was extremely effective. I was convinced out of the block that the CP solved the entirety of the case.
On your evidence about Lugar, it would help your case to explain to me why Lugar is key/spillsover. Without your own analysis on the issue, you force me to call for cards and make my own subjective decision on the state of your uniqueness, which isn't a place you want to be.
Explain to me that their case solves the DA impact arguments aren't just solved by the CP, but are also taken out by your case defense. In a world where you go for the counterplan I know not to grant them their impacts, but you aren't telling me the same thing for a world in which you go for case.
1NR
Great analysis overall.
Case flows get very muddled in the end. Again, you get pressed for time and start to jump around too much and lose some flowability. I didn't get all of your analysis on the warming or heg flows as a result.
1AR
Need to have impact calc and respond to their DA turns and o/w analysis. Couple of suggestions for this:
1. leverage 1AC uniqueness against their turns case arguments. Saying uniqueness controls the direction of the link means there is no room for turns-if warming is happening now, the aff isn't going to cause it, only a chance you solve.
2. Have broad defense to take out all of their offense at once. In other words, attack the internal links instead of the impacts. For example, your Kagan card says START does jack-means they don't access any of their impacts.
Don't waste time on conditionality like this. It was obvious you weren't going to go for it, and it ended up being more of a time waster for you than for them.
To save time, you can kick advantages.
At this point, your only form of viable offense is the case-make sure you are going deep on impact defense (uniqueness) against the DAs to outweigh.
Need to have better indicts of their solvency claims on the CP. It's not enough to tell me why the alliance will collapse will collapse in the squo, but why Futenma is uniquely key and can't be solved for by any other scenario. Some of the political pressure arguments brought up in CX may be able to help here, as would some better arguments about the snowballing effect.
2NR
You need to go deeper in mitigating their solvency deficit arguments. You have what you need in the block, you just don't extend it. For example, you have the no brink argument on the CP flow when you say it has been four years with no impact, and Michael has the arg about the raped 12 year old that also mitigates the probability of Japan getting pissed off enough. You do a good job explaining why you solve in the abstract, but without mitigation specific to their aff, you let them get away with characterizing their solvency deficit as the only issue that matters and as something that will happen in the very near future, where neither is probably true.
However, you did a good job compensating for this by extending the arg that the magnitude of your solvency outweighs the deficit because you are a positive action whereas they just stop a negative action.
2AR
You're sort of screwed on the impact level considering there has been literally no analysis before. Don't try to outweigh them now, you're just wasting time. Instead, you need to concentrate on taking out all of their impacts with your non uniques and winning a solvency deficit on the CP to weigh against a DA that you want to largely mitigate.
The use of the Auslin evidence was incredibly confusing. Why was it at the top of the DA flow when it was the solvency deficit to the CP? If it was supposed to be an overview, call it an overview, or better yet, just put it on the CP flow.
However, you did do a good job calling them out with this Auslin ev. It might have been a good idea to further articulate warrants as to why there is a snowballing effect now.
Great style. I could understand every word you said.
Combine the future of east asia, east asia, and heg flows. They're all based off the same internal links and can be easily combined into one advantage with two different impact scenarios. That would prevent the confusion that ensued about 5 times during the debate.
Add more ev, time the 1AC. Even with the extra card, you still have time left over.
CX
Ryan-Don't give in so easily. Conceeding plan unpopular is probably not a good idea.
1NC
Slow down at the very beginning. I lost the tag of the first card in your burst of speed.
Note to everyone: also slow down when switching flows. It takes me a second to change on my computer, and I lose part of the first arg you make if you're going top speed with no pause.
I also have no idea what the CP is. It's fine to have to CP text reference a piece of evidence, but then you need to slow down on that piece of evidence so that I have an idea what's going on.
The Marines link seems a little shady on the START DA. The Marines are inherently intertwined with and probably have a very strong opinion about defense policy. This opinion will probably not change as a result of the plan.
Make sure you get to case with more time so you don't feel rushed, perhaps by not reading quite as many impacts on island hopping. You got rushed, and you lost clarity to the point where I didn't know where you were on the flow in the end.
2AC
Make sure you have warrants for all of your claims on case. It's good to point out that they dropped a card that responds to their claim, but you still need to give me a bit of a warrant behind that card.
You need more offense on both of the DAs. Have carded offense on Island Hopping/make it a lot clearer. On START, you need to have more offense than just 1 impact turn or the block can easily outcard you. Additionally, you need to be making defensive claims against their impacts-the Kagan card would do that well.
Nice job articulating that the link will be triggered inevitably, but make sure this arg gets into later speeches as well.
The link turns on island hopping weren't very clear, be more explicit.
Have more offense on the K. Outside of an unarticulated point about colonialism and capitalism, there isn't anything in the way of true offense, and 4 or 5 points just isn't enough in general. I could easily have seen a block that went heavy on the K making your lives pretty miserable.
Reading the "aff solves x impact of the da" cards weren't very strategic in a world where they go for the CP, because they'll subsume your offense. You need external impact turns.
Your answer to warming not anthro is insufficient. Telling me that warming is happening now does not tell me about its source.
CX
Stop yelling at each other, and let everyone finish their questions/responses. It would make it MUCH easier to hear what's going on.
2NC
Fantastic overall.
VERY deep analysis on CP solvency was extremely effective. I was convinced out of the block that the CP solved the entirety of the case.
On your evidence about Lugar, it would help your case to explain to me why Lugar is key/spillsover. Without your own analysis on the issue, you force me to call for cards and make my own subjective decision on the state of your uniqueness, which isn't a place you want to be.
Explain to me that their case solves the DA impact arguments aren't just solved by the CP, but are also taken out by your case defense. In a world where you go for the counterplan I know not to grant them their impacts, but you aren't telling me the same thing for a world in which you go for case.
1NR
Great analysis overall.
Case flows get very muddled in the end. Again, you get pressed for time and start to jump around too much and lose some flowability. I didn't get all of your analysis on the warming or heg flows as a result.
1AR
Need to have impact calc and respond to their DA turns and o/w analysis. Couple of suggestions for this:
1. leverage 1AC uniqueness against their turns case arguments. Saying uniqueness controls the direction of the link means there is no room for turns-if warming is happening now, the aff isn't going to cause it, only a chance you solve.
2. Have broad defense to take out all of their offense at once. In other words, attack the internal links instead of the impacts. For example, your Kagan card says START does jack-means they don't access any of their impacts.
Don't waste time on conditionality like this. It was obvious you weren't going to go for it, and it ended up being more of a time waster for you than for them.
To save time, you can kick advantages.
At this point, your only form of viable offense is the case-make sure you are going deep on impact defense (uniqueness) against the DAs to outweigh.
Need to have better indicts of their solvency claims on the CP. It's not enough to tell me why the alliance will collapse will collapse in the squo, but why Futenma is uniquely key and can't be solved for by any other scenario. Some of the political pressure arguments brought up in CX may be able to help here, as would some better arguments about the snowballing effect.
2NR
You need to go deeper in mitigating their solvency deficit arguments. You have what you need in the block, you just don't extend it. For example, you have the no brink argument on the CP flow when you say it has been four years with no impact, and Michael has the arg about the raped 12 year old that also mitigates the probability of Japan getting pissed off enough. You do a good job explaining why you solve in the abstract, but without mitigation specific to their aff, you let them get away with characterizing their solvency deficit as the only issue that matters and as something that will happen in the very near future, where neither is probably true.
However, you did a good job compensating for this by extending the arg that the magnitude of your solvency outweighs the deficit because you are a positive action whereas they just stop a negative action.
2AR
You're sort of screwed on the impact level considering there has been literally no analysis before. Don't try to outweigh them now, you're just wasting time. Instead, you need to concentrate on taking out all of their impacts with your non uniques and winning a solvency deficit on the CP to weigh against a DA that you want to largely mitigate.
The use of the Auslin evidence was incredibly confusing. Why was it at the top of the DA flow when it was the solvency deficit to the CP? If it was supposed to be an overview, call it an overview, or better yet, just put it on the CP flow.
However, you did do a good job calling them out with this Auslin ev. It might have been a good idea to further articulate warrants as to why there is a snowballing effect now.